This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/felicity-huffman-sentencing.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Facing Sentencing, Felicity Huffman Says She Wanted ‘Fair Shot’ for Daughter Felicity Huffman Sentenced to 14 Days Behind Bars in College Admissions Scandal
(about 4 hours later)
BOSTON — The popular television actress exuded confidence in front of the camera, but as a mother, she said, she was insecure. BOSTON — The actress Felicity Huffman was sentenced to 14 days in prison for paying a college consultant $15,000 to inflate her daughter’s SAT score, becoming the first parent given a punishment in a sweeping scheme in which nearly three dozen wealthy parents are accused of using lies and bribes to smooth their children’s way into prestigious colleges.
Felicity Huffman, the actress who is expected to be sentenced on Friday in the nation’s largest college admissions cheating case, said she was always searching for “the right book or the right piece of advice” that would keep her from making a catastrophic mistake as she raised her children. Ms. Huffman’s sentence, which included a $30,000 fine, supervised release for a year and 250 hours of community service, was being closely watched as an indication of how harshly parents in this case would be punished. And it suggested that the judge, Indira Talwani, agreed with prosecutors that a term of imprisonment — even a short one — was necessary to send a message that wealthy parents would not get away with trying to steal admissions slots from more deserving students.
So when a college counselor warned her that her elder daughter’s SAT score would be too low to be considered by top performing arts schools, she listened to what he suggested next: She should pay him $15,000 to cheat on the test. Ms. Huffman’s lawyers had argued for a sentence of probation. They said that prison was not needed as a deterrent in Ms. Huffman’s case because she had already suffered enough — being publicly shamed, seeing her acting career crater, and incurring the anger of her family.
Even before the sentencing, questions were being raised about fairness and whether Ms. Huffman and the other defendants would receive lighter punishments than poor and nonwhite defendants convicted of similar crimes.
[Dozens of wealthy parents, according to court documents, paid millions of dollars in bribes to secure the admission of their children into elite universities.][Dozens of wealthy parents, according to court documents, paid millions of dollars in bribes to secure the admission of their children into elite universities.]
“In my desperation to be a good mother I talked myself into believing that all I was doing was giving my daughter a fair shot,” Ms. Huffman wrote in a letter to the judge who will decide her punishment. In her letter, Ms. Huffman added that she saw “the irony in that statement now.” Ms. Huffman’s sentence was unlikely to silence those questions. Some observers had already dismissed one month of incarceration that prosecutors had requested as too short for what they viewed as a crime driven by greed and entitlement.
A federal judge will decide Ms. Huffman’s penalty for her role in what prosecutors describe as a broad conspiracy to cheat on exams and bribe coaches to designate students as recruits in sports they often did not play. Ms. Huffman, who pleaded guilty in May to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, is the first of the nearly three dozen wealthy parents charged in the scheme to be sentenced, and her sentence is being closely watched as an early sign of whether the penalties will be significant. At the same time, lawyers for some black defendants who were given prison sentences for crimes involving educational fraud said that the solution to disparities in the justice system was not to send Ms. Huffman to prison for longer, but to send fewer black defendants there.
[Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin have found themselves as the twin public faces of a sprawling college admissions bribery scheme.] Beyond Ms. Huffman’s case, the scheme included cheating on college entrance exams and bribing college coaches to designate students as recruits in sports that in most cases they did not play.
Prosecutors have asked that Ms. Huffman be sentenced to one month of incarceration, while her lawyers say she should get no jail time but a year of probation. The two sides have sparred about how to best compare Ms. Huffman’s offense — a felony which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years — with past examples of educational fraud. And questions have been raised about whether Ms. Huffman and the other parents will receive lighter punishments than poor and nonwhite defendants convicted of similar crimes. In a letter Ms. Huffman submitted to the court ahead of her sentencing, she described being motivated to take part in the cheating scheme by a mix of maternal devotion and fear. She wrote that her insecurity as a parent, which she said was amplified by having a daughter with learning disabilities, made her trust the college counselor she had hired and rely on his advice against her better judgment. The counselor, William Singer, whom prosecutors have described as the mastermind of the admissions scheme, has pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges; he has not yet been sentenced.
In the letter she submitted ahead of her sentencing, Ms. Huffman described being motivated by a mix of maternal devotion and fear. She wrote that her insecurity as a parent, which she said was amplified by having a daughter with learning disabilities, made her trust the college counselor she had hired and rely on his advice against her better judgment. The counselor, William Singer, whom prosecutors have described as the mastermind of the admissions scheme, has pleaded guilty to racketeering and other charges; he has not yet been sentenced.
After he had counseled Ms. Huffman’s daughter for nearly a year, Mr. Singer told Ms. Huffman that, unless her daughter’s SAT math score rose sharply, the performing arts schools she was aiming for would not even consider her, Ms. Huffman told the judge.After he had counseled Ms. Huffman’s daughter for nearly a year, Mr. Singer told Ms. Huffman that, unless her daughter’s SAT math score rose sharply, the performing arts schools she was aiming for would not even consider her, Ms. Huffman told the judge.
[The Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin became the public faces of a sprawling college admissions bribery scheme.]
“I honestly didn’t and don’t care about my daughter going to a prestigious college,” Ms. Huffman wrote. “I just wanted to give her a shot at being considered for a program where her acting talent would be the deciding factor. This sounds hollow now, but, in my mind, I knew that her success or failure in theater or film wouldn’t depend on her math skills. I didn’t want my daughter to be prevented from getting a shot at auditioning and doing what she loves because she can’t do math.”“I honestly didn’t and don’t care about my daughter going to a prestigious college,” Ms. Huffman wrote. “I just wanted to give her a shot at being considered for a program where her acting talent would be the deciding factor. This sounds hollow now, but, in my mind, I knew that her success or failure in theater or film wouldn’t depend on her math skills. I didn’t want my daughter to be prevented from getting a shot at auditioning and doing what she loves because she can’t do math.”
Prosecutors have argued that the parents involved must serve at least some time in prison, to show that wealthy people will not get away with corrupting the admissions system. At one point the prosecutors had indicated they would ask that Ms. Huffman face four months behind bars, but they lowered their request last week. In the cases of some other parents who have pleaded guilty in the case, they are seeking as much as 15 months of incarceration. They asked for a comparatively lighter sentence for Ms. Huffman in part, they said, because she paid less than many of the other parents and because she chose not to include her younger daughter in the scheme. Prosecutors had argued that the parents involved needed to serve at least some time in prison, to show that wealthy people would not get away with corrupting the admissions system. At one point the prosecutors had indicated they would ask that Ms. Huffman face four months behind bars, but they lowered their request last week.
In seeking at least a brief period of incarceration, prosecutors have pointed to examples of educational fraud that have been punished with prison terms — in some cases, long ones. In court papers, they cited a case in which Atlanta public schoolteachers, principals and administrators were convicted in a conspiracy to cheat on state tests, and some were sentenced to as much as three years in prison; all of the defendants were black. In another case, an African-American mother in Ohio was sentenced to five years in prison — a sentence later suspended to 10 days in jail, three years of probation and community service — for using her father’s address to get her children into a nearby suburban school district. Prosecutors have charged 51 people in the expansive admissions case, including coaches and employees of Mr. Singer, and 15 of the 34 parents charged have pleaded guilty. In the cases of some other parents who have pleaded guilty in the case, prosecutors are seeking as much as 15 months of incarceration. They asked for a comparatively lighter sentence for Ms. Huffman in part, they said, because she paid less than many of the other parents and because she chose not to include her younger daughter in the scheme.
[U.S.C. has fought to attract low-income students. Now, the campus has become a vivid microcosm of the economic disparities in Los Angeles.] Other parents are scheduled to be sentenced in the coming weeks, many of them by Judge Talwani. The likelihood that other defendants will get short sentences or probation increased slightly on Friday when Judge Talwani said, in a memorandum filed before Ms. Huffman’s sentencing, that the victims of the fraud — testing companies and the universities where coaches were bribed — had not suffered any financial harm that should affect the defendants’ sentencing guidelines. That means that all the parents before Judge Talwani will likely be facing sentencing guidelines of zero to six months, though she noted in her memorandum that she can issue a sentence outside the guidelines.
In arguing for at least a brief period of incarceration, prosecutors had pointed to examples of educational fraud that had been punished with prison terms — in some cases, long ones. In court papers, they cited a case in which Atlanta public schoolteachers, principals and administrators were convicted in a conspiracy to cheat on state tests, and some were sentenced to as much as three years in prison; all of the defendants were black. In another case, an African-American mother in Ohio, Kelley Williams-Bolar, was sentenced to five years in prison — a sentence later suspended to 10 days in jail, three years of probation and community service — for using her father’s address to get her children into a nearby suburban school district.
[Read how students of color responded to accusations that they were admitted solely because of racial preferences.]
In light of examples like these, the prosecutors suggested, sentencing parents in this case to probation would invite accusations of unfairness and racial bias.In light of examples like these, the prosecutors suggested, sentencing parents in this case to probation would invite accusations of unfairness and racial bias.
The cases “most analogous to this one — involving organized schemes and multiple co-conspirators — have typically resulted in the imposition of meaningful terms of incarceration,” they wrote. “Frequently, those cases involved defendants who are members of racial and ethnic minorities and/or from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. A different result in this case, particularly given the history and characteristics of these defendants, would not be appropriate.” But some defense lawyers involved in those cases rejected suggestions that their clients’ cases should be used to argue that Ms. Huffman should be sent to prison.
In calling for probation for Ms. Huffman, her lawyers cited examples of testing fraud in which defendants got no jail time, including a case in which 15 Chinese nationals were charged with cheating on college entrance exams in a scheme involving fake passports and paid test takers. In that 2015 case, most of the defendants received probation, and although the records of two defendants are sealed, Ms. Huffman’s lawyers say there is no record of any of the defendants being sent to prison. David Singleton, the executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, who represented Ms. Williams-Bolar in successfully seeking clemency in her case, said that there were indeed disparities in the justice system.
[Read how students of color responded to accusations that they were admitted solely due to racial preferences.] “When you are rich — and particularly if you’re rich and white in this country — there’s a different justice system,” he said. But, he added, “Sending Felicity Huffman to jail is not going to solve that problem.”
Prosecutors have charged 51 people in the admissions case, including coaches and employees of Mr. Singer, and 15 of the 34 parents charged have pleaded guilty. Most of those parents are scheduled to be sentenced in the coming weeks, most by the same judge, Indira Talwani. Similarly, lawyers who represented educators charged in the Atlanta test cheating scandal said that the sentences given to some of the defendants in that case were excessive.
In addition to one month of incarceration for Ms. Huffman, prosecutors have asked for a year of supervised release and a fine of $20,000. Ms. Huffman’s lawyers have argued for a year of probation, the fine and 250 hours of community service. [U.S.C. has fought to attract low-income students. Now, the campus has become a vivid microcosm of the economic disparities in Los Angeles.]
Prosecutors have framed the college admissions scheme as a conspiracy whose victims were the testing companies and universities where coaches accepted bribes to recruit students who were mostly not real athletes. But one question hanging over the case is how judges will view the role of universities that have been tied to the scandal, and how that may affect their decisions about punishments. “Our educators in our cheating scandal in Atlanta were way over-prosecuted and way over-punished,” said Bob Rubin, who represents Dana Evans, a former principal, who was convicted of a racketeering charge and of making a false statement to a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent. Ms. Evans was sentenced to one year in prison; her case is currently on appeal.
In a recent court filing, federal probation officials, who advise judges on sentencing guidelines, said they questioned “what degree of responsibility lies with the schools and testing agencies for failing to properly oversee the admissions and testing processes to ensure that they were fair for all students.” “My answer is not to give Felicity Huffman more, but to give our clients less,” Mr. Rubin said.
In fact, many of the 35 defendants charged in the Atlanta case pleaded guilty and received sentences of probation.
Sandy Wallack, who represented Dessa Curb, a special-education teacher who was found not guilty at trial, said Ms. Huffman’s case seemed more akin to the Atlanta defendants who had received probation, since Ms. Huffman pleaded guilty and expressed contrition. He said that probation was probably an appropriate sentence.